I hope its okay to start a thread on fashion critique since I think it’s relative to the designers collections. Every time Fashion Week rolls around I find myself questioning the critieria people use to rate the collections since a lot of the critique seems so arbitrary. I realize that it is heavily subjective but the fact that a lot of the industry seems to fall in line as far as praising certain collections makes me think that there is some set criteria. For instance, why do all the professional critics rave over Lanvin, Prada and Marc Jacobs?

As far as the TFS , I've noticed the critiques seem to fall into a few categories

The experts-- A few posters who have a fashion education and maybe work in the industry so they seem to have a working knowledge of material, construction etc. I find these critiques most informative and even when I disagree I appreciate that there is some basis for their opinion.

The realists— They may not have a fashion background and are likely to respond more positively to collections that appear to be most wearable.

The artists—They like the more avant garde couture collections and tend to view the more wearable collections as boring regardless of craftsmanship.

The groupies: They are fans of particular designer houses—usually the big name houses. They have usernames like Balenciaga4eva or something. They rave over that their favorite designer collections no matter what and tend to look at other collections only to note similarities to their favorite house. (Those sleeves are so Balmain! Or “He’s totally ripping off Versace!”).

The nonconformists—They hate the big houses and favor smaller indie labels particularly the most avant garde because they don't conform to the mainstream tastes.

Of course people may be mixtures of those critics.

I guess I want to know what everyone looks for when they critique a collection.

What factors tend to make you love a collection and what makes you hate it? Do you think you are biased in any way?

For the expert posters do you have any advice on how to objectively rate collections such as what to look for in construction, proportions.etc?

I suppose most of the comments are based on the emotions and the first impression
but oh well, fashion is art and art is subjective so I tend to avoid things like 'love it/hate it' (though it is hardly ever possible)

the experts are the realists, m? if you want to be objective, the first thing to do, I suppose, is to look carefully through a collection plenty of times; to calm down and see a design as a some kind of creature, who has its own individuality, emotions and try to FEEL it.
then you are able to talk about construction, proportions, styling etc.

and I think it is some kind of a talent... to have a sense of what is good and what is not.

I'm very subjective when I look at collections, I immediately think if I'd wear it. I don't really prefer any labels, I try to look at all collections with an open mind. Sometimes it takes days for me to digest a collection, it happens often with Prada.

I think the reason a lot of critics seem to respond similarly towards particular designers, besides advertising clout, is that critics have certain expectations of a label. Like with Lanvin you expect to see certain things, you expect a certain kind of look, you expect a certain level of craft. With Prada you expect experimentation and oddness. With Balenciaga you expect innovation, imagination and amazing technique. You can't judge each designer on the same merits because each of their labels stand for different things.

That's pretty much how I try to look at collections as well. I've gotten to a point where how much I may like a label doesn't have a big influence on my opinion of each collection they show. I love Balenciaga as a house but I don't always love the collections Ghesquiere shows and if I don't like it I don't praise it.

The things I look for no matter what designer I'm looking at are; whether or not the collection seems relevant to the label, whether or not I find it interesting and whether or not the results are appealing to me.

I agree with what Spike said about knowing what to expect from the respective design houses . I am not going to expect a label like, let's say, Moschino Cheap & Chic to do something ground-breaking like I would at Balenciaga . You cannot expect a house to give something more than it can .

When I look at a collection, everything is important - from the cuts of clothes to something like the lighting . It all let's me understand it better .

And, again like Spike, I like what I like and don't like what I don't . It's known that I am anti-Frida at Gucci, but this season changed me because I felt that the collection was close to what I imagine Gucci should be like and it showed in everything .

I tend to be very selfish when I critique a collection - it's always whether my female alter-ego would wear what is being put out or not.
I like designers thinking outside of the box, having their own opinion and not caving in and conforming when they realise one or two people don't like it. I also don't like it when designers realise they've designed something that sells and so just regurgitate that piece season after season in different colours. Several of my favourite designers have gotten into the habit of doing this.
I suppose I'm always looking for the innovators; the experimentors with cut and shape; as if I'm on a constant look out for the next huge name.
I'm critical about tired ideas and cheap-looking designs.

i look for wearable, interesting, unique (yeah, i want ALL OF THAT out of a collection)...on the other side of the coin i love avant-garde stuff as well, it's always good to see what an experimenter can do, but the more wearable, day-to-day clothing catches my eye more lately because i can't afford new clothes! sad but true

we also have to take into account those who speak from the retail/shopper perspective. it's not necessearily the same as the "wearable" argument because many of these brands -- from lanvin to proenza schouler to balmain to prada -- don't always fit that bill, but they all have found a way to sell it anyway. fashion, at the end of the day, remains a business.

I think us males, for the most part, take wearability out of the equation when we critique womanswear. We don't have to imagine how we'd wear it, how we'd work it into your daily lives, so it doesn't always factor in too much. Unless perhaps they are a buyer or such. I can appreciate that something is highly wearable and commercial, but that's not say that's going to make me like a collection.

There are certain designers that I'm just never going to feel for, in the same way there's designers and brands that I am more than likely always going to like the work of as our aesthetics match.

I think often it can be a mistake to critique the manufacturing/technical details of a collection from the runway. Some designers, such as Christopher Kane for example can have really, really bad construction going on for their runway shows, but it can get cleaned up and perfected for the garments making it to stores.

Mostly though I think a lot of people critique collections based solely on their gut, that's why we one word posts like "I hate" or "awful". I know when I like and appreciate something straight off, and know when something's just not grabbing me at all.

honeycomvchild u're so right for the view we have of women fashion. i also think men are more "reasonnable" when they judge a collection, especially heterosexual...i am hetero and, as a versace seller said, we tend to se fashion more as an utilitary thing, whereas gay are more attracted by the artistic part...at least that's what she noticed. of course it's just a tendance, and i feel interested also in the artistic aspect. but most of time, if think of how i will use a clothes (i mean really expensive clothes) before. this is a thing between realists and experts maybe . but everyone see fashion in his own way

I remember a tutor at University saying to me that you could usually always tell the difference between a heterosexual eye and a homosexual eye. One looks at is as the woman they'd want to stand next to, have on his arm, and the other looks at is as who he'd like to put on a pedestal and worship.

Obviously I'm not saying that's how it always works, and it could be a very small factor, but I think it can sometimes account for some male's opinions of certain collections.

My first thought always is "Will I want to wear that come Fall?" What am I tired of, what looks fresh, what looks wearable? I try not to be influenced by the setting or the cast or the lighting. That won't end up in stores. I even try to ignore the styling and look at the collection as single pieces. It annoys me when pants are missing (at Dolce & Gabbana) or when the styling is deliberately ugly (Marc tends to do this), but it the end, I'll buy a shirt or a skirt and wear it with a different shirt or skirt from a different designer.

So, yes, I'm all about the much famed wearability. I liked Prada this season because I'm tired of miniskirts and studs, I saw myself in one of that ruffle dresses right away. Of course, wearability means something different to all of us - depending on how daring you are.

Plus, I think it's hard to be objective with critique. We all have personal tastes that lead us to prefer some designers to others, based on their signatures and the look they like, the house they work for.
This season I saw my first Jil Sander collection, because they streamed it life. I'm by no means a minimalist and the only thing I liked was the pink shoulder on the dress Joan Smalls wore (I think). Does that mean it was a bad collection? No. It means that I'm in no place to judge it.

I wish that some other members would follow that policy as well. I'm always so enraged by the commenst one of my favourites, Marc Jacobs, gets every season, "His stuff is ugly, ladida." If you don't like his way of designing, why bother? I hate it when I read something like "This is so ugly, I don't get why people like this."

Some are very narrow-minded within their critique.

And I'm always curious how male members judge womenswear... It was interesting to read something about that here.

__________________

I'm an ice queen, I’m the Sun King, I’m an alien fleeing from District 9 and I’m a dominatrix. So I reckon that makes me a lukewarm royalty with a whip from outer space.

wow what a nice thread! I've been thinking about this subject ever since I started looking at collections.
As a woman I think i do tend to look at things from the "wearablility" angle, but I can still appreciate things that are artistic. I do think that there are too many people who expect every collection to be "ground breaking" or "foward thinking". I think folks have to realize that fashion is more than just art cause it has to sell on a large scale.
If you paint a picture all you need is one person to love it and buy it, but with clothes you genrally need to capture the interst of thousands of people !

I don't think so at all, there must be a lot of homosexual people here and all of them have different tastes. That's like saying eating crum make breasts bigger.

It wasn't particuarly about tastes. You can still have very different tastes from one another, but what I actually said that it was perhaps a difference in the way people like women to be, like them to appear. There's still a massive space for taste within that.